Customer Reviews

Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Shoher presents a compelling argument for strengthening Israel's
position in the world through firm and decisive action. While I am
sure that there are relatively few people who will agree with
everything he suggests, he does do an excellent job of reasoning out
his arguments and provides citations and references for all of his
claims. Many parts of this book come off as extreme or racist, but
I think that it is good to get these ideas out in the open and
actually consider them as possibilities for action that could be taken by
Israel. Five stars for this one because I'm glad that someone has
the will to take these "extreme" ideas and put them to paper as well
thought out propositions. This debate has been going on for a long
time, and one way or another, action needs to be taken.. and this
book will surely help people reason out what that action should be.

Among the main premises of the book is that Jews should start
viewing and treating Islamic states as their enemies. This means
that otherwise drastic seeming actions could be carried out and that
Israel shouldn't feel bad about hurting or disabling Arabs. Shoher
proposes taking land by force and then expelling its inhabitants as
well as responding to terrorist attacks by blanket reprisals against
cities and governments. Many very interesting ideas are presented
here, including the selling of Israeli mercenaries to foreign powers
and bribing imams to teach more liberal ideals in order to compete
with Saudi Arabia's promotion of jihad. Also, ideas to promote
conflicts between Muslim states are discussed as well as other ways
to trick and fool the Muslim world into forgetting their common enemy
and focusing on others.

One thing that turned me off about this book personally, was
Shoher's rather European-like cynical view of America and its
reasons for doing things. Claiming that the West basically ignores
the accumulation of WMDs by Muslim states doesn't really hold up
under recent world events. America chose Iraq arbitrarily? I think
not. And it really isn't fair to compare the wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq to proposed takeovers of Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, whereas
America has no interest in claiming lands of the Middle East as
their own and will not displace civilians with their own settlers.
But this book isn't about America, and I can understand Shoher's
misunderstanding of the goals and values of that great nation.

Shoher argues compellingly that the political game in Israel has
resulted in a country that cannot act forcefully one way or
another. When one political party acts, another is quick to follow
and reverse that action. Shoher believes that Israel must have a
debate and decide on what their course will be, isolationism or
aggressiveness towards their neighbors. When it is decided, commit
to that decision. Basically, stick with a plan and don't
vacillate. Fight for a clear objective and don't loose sight of
that goal. Weigh the costs and the benefits of actions, and when a
path is chosen, don't waver.

"Conflicts between states cannot be solved by palliatives but
require the credible threat of force."

Very balanced and to the point. Looking at the Middle east from a western/humanist perspective misses the real mark. This is a conflict between two eastern cultures, you cannot interject western values. The Western approach will never work.

The book is very much to the point. Always logical even if it counters you sensibilities and past ideas.
Unfortunately I doubt that these ideas would be followed by the Israeli government.
No doubt though that if they were so followed much prolonged pain and suffering would be resolved much sooner.

The author weaves an objective, matter-of-fact and bottom line exploration of the realities which confront Israel in its conflict with the surrounding hostile states and "Palestinians", as well as the moral and geopolitical implications relative to history and posterity in the modern world. What more effective and appropriate point of intellectual focus and perspective for this study could he have chosen than Niccolo Machiavelli?

In the context of this approach the author lays an efficient foundation, explaining that "Niccolo Machiavelli affirmed that two ways lead most directly to peace: destroy a people's will to fight by either utter goodness or by utter cruelty..." He explores the nature of the various player's will to fight within their unique context of principles, as well as to bear and inflict suffering. Then he postulates the dilemma (of the modern world), that "the desire for peaceful coexistence runs aground on two problems. First, it accommodates evil alongside merely diverse views... The distinction between justice and mercy blurs in nonexistence. Second, the desire for accommodation is hypocritical..."

If you are not already a committed partisan, as an enemy, or siding with the enemies of Israel, then there is much here to further widen your scope of circumstantial understanding and fundamental perspective. If you are such a committed partisan, reading this book is an honest opportunity to come to grips with the essential and universal intellectual issues intrinsic to the conflict beyond culturally ideological and theological inculcation. Everyone interested in the mideast conflict can grow by reading this book.

My eyes have opened, against my will. The truth is scary and for the biggest part of my life I lived in wishful illusions. However reality does not confirm to our wishes.
It is not a book to agree or disagree with. It is an in-your-face call to awaken and face the reality.
This book provided me with needed analytical tools. It is the most influential document I've read in the last 10 years.
While I don't agree with much of what Obadiah is saying, his book gave me a new perspective from which to view historical reality.

While the book is mostly about Israel, the the principles of the power politics apply MUCH more to the powerful the United States.
Read this book only if you are ready to leave behind your sweet dreams about morality, compassion, fairness, or humanity in the international relations.

The book is interesting. That does not mean I agree with everything written there, mind you.

The title is somewhat deceptive - the book has nothing to do with "Machiavellism". This word has derogatory connotations and means dishonest and unscrupulous dealing in politics, sort of "the ends justify the means"; whereas the principles of governance postulated by Machiavelli were based on pure reason, political expediency and realism and free of any ideological mold. Including this one, "Machiavellian".

The author of this book strives to bring "Machiavellian perspective" in the context of realpolitik of the Middle East. His opinions on variety of issues are based on reason and analysis of the situation and not ideological cliches, "leftist", "rightist", liberal, conservative etc. While everyone interested has his/her own opinion on Middle-Eastern matters, that does not make this book any less shrewd than it is.

I give this book 4 stars and not 5 because it doesn't have a coherent narrative; rather, it's an assortment of thoughts on various aspects of politico-economic landscape of the Middle East, produced by an extremely bright intellect.

This is the book for one who has studied the Arab-Israeli conflict will at long last read an analysis that will give him the experience of an "Eureka Moment - "This is it!" The solution as best as any solution that can be found to resolve the conflict once and for all. This reviewer has studied that dismal conflict for many years. During that time he has assembled a library of 70+ books on the subject by authors all knowledgeable and competent. The time is long past for the academic hairsplitters and the timid handwringers. Like Alexander, Shoher cuts the Gordian's knot with this book. Now lets go on and conquer, as was prophesied.

Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict by Shoher is summing up what decent, normal people the world over already know: Israel has the right to exist in peace and therefore, must defend itself. Israel's paradoxical position amid Islamic nations whose values for honesty, decency and life are nowhere near that of its own places it in a peculiar position. Israel, besides being a modern nation, is western in its culture and values and its progressive existence can only be envied by nations endowed by much larger land-mass, greater population, and natural resources. Living in the neighborhood they do, it is impossible to play 'righteous,' when the hoodlums on your block (and some who are even further away,) constantly wish to harm you. Shoher presents logical as well as historical facts to back his position and makes a good argument for justice.

Perhaps to start we should make clear what Machiavelli's (and Obadiah Shoher's) position is vis-a-vis human relationships. When conflicts cannot be resolved by negotiation then the use of force is necessary. When this occurs the stronger side must completely subjugate the weaker without reference to rules of war or so called humanitarian practices (except as propaganda devices).

Shoher believes that the virtue in this approach lies in the fact that it ends the conflict quickly and therefore in the long run reduces human suffering. Half-hearted measures, compromises, any sign of weakness on the part of the stronger just confuse the weaker side and prolong the conflict and the suffering.

It is interesting to take a lesson from biology in this regard. Conflicts between individuals over mates or territory are resolved by fighting. However, the fighting usually never occurs. There is a lot of posturing and strutting and snorting and huffing and puffing until the weaker side recognizes the likely loss and withdraws. This is nature's economical way. Why waste precious resources (the bodies of the combatants) when the outcome can be discerned?

However when the individuals involved are more or less equally matched and it is not clear which would prevail, then the fight does take place.

With this in mind it is easy to predict that Shoher's position is that Israel (obviously the stronger side) should drive the Palestinians out without hesitation, without regard for humanitarian concerns and to do it as quickly and efficiently as possible without qualm.

That way the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab/Muslim world would recognize what they respect most, that is superior power, and they would actually gain respect for Israel and accept the facts of life. As it is, with Israel being held back by so-called world humanitarian opinion, the Palestinians are just given false hope and therefore are encouraged to continue the conflict.

I might agree with this logic if we could isolate the Israelis and the Palestinians from the rest of the world. If they were the only ones involved. They are not.

The problem is twofold. One, whatever happens in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will affect other people in the world. It will tremendously affect the other Arab nations nearby both in a psychological and practical sense, and indeed the conflict is affecting them today. Some of the madness that prevails in the Arab world is based on their perception of what is happening in the Holy Land and their frustration with their inability to effectively do anything about it.

Two, there is in the long run a principle more important than efficiently disposing of this or that conflict. It is what is known as the rule of law. At present such a rule does not obtain in international affairs. As Machiavelli noted and all modern nation states realize, the rule of the jungle is what prevails in international affairs. However it is easily seen that the world and its people would be better off if the rule of law prevailed. We can see this in places like the United States and in other countries of the world in which the rule of law does prevail. The red states do not attack the blue states. Today Europe is attempting to bring the rule of law to its diverse cultures. And it is succeeding. How much better off the people of Europe are today than during the wars that previously prevailed.

What is needed is for the rule of law to prevail throughout the entire world. Unfortunately we are still quite a ways from that utopia. Still anyone who has given the idea much thought at all knows that that is what we should be working toward.

With that in mind, the strength of the stronger (Israel) is compromised to the extent that the rest of the world wants to move ahead with its ideals of peaceful resolution of conflict. So instead of the singular conflict between Israel and Palestine we have a dual conflict: Israel versus the Palestinians on the one hand, and the war system versus the rule of law on the other.

This is why Shoher's solution will not work in the Middle East, or at least I should say, will not be employed.

Nonetheless this is an admirable book. Shoher presents Machiavelli's case with an abundance of clarity, reasoned argument and the kind of consistency admired by philosophers and mathematicians. In this regard I note on page 113 his argument that it is better to punish the innocent now and then rather than to let some guilty parties get away with murder. This is in opposition to the usual logic in which it is believed that it is better to let x number of guilty people go free than to wrongly punish one innocent person. Shoher is right in one respect: his system would have a more chilling effect on crime than the present system; however from the point of view of the abstract concept of justice, his system would be a failure.

Man does not live by bread alone. Ideals and morality, the just life and the moral life, the examined life, the life of human beings lived fully is for most people what is essential, not just the animal existence. And so we compromise the "best," most efficient ways of living for the most graceful, the most aesthetically pleasing, the most moral.

Ironically I would say that Shoher's solution is ultimately naive. Machiavelli naive? Strange to say but yes. Brutal logic runs our computers, but our minds are not computers. Human beings are not machines. And so the people in the Middle East will continue to suffer, just as humans have suffered since before the dawn of history. The only way out is the rule of law universally applied or a change in human nature. Both of these possibilities, because of globalization on the one hand, and genetic engineering on the other, may not be as far off as they once were.

[Note: a dozen of my books are now available at Amazon. My latest, "I Think We Survived the Nightmare: Political, Social and Economic Reviews" by Dennis Littrell will be available soon.]

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the mandate of a Jewish Israel with borders that expand into Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, this book is well worth reading. Of particular interest are the many possible solutions the author proposes for establishing Israel as a respected country in the region, and for bringing an end to the terrorist attacks. I found the suggestions regarding the need for a strong economy particularly insightful. Although some of the author's military ideas may seem a bit inhumane--for example, opinions will most certainly differ regarding the idea that civilians are fair game because they vote for the government and pay taxes that help support the war effort--as the author states, "war is not a competition in moral values" but should be pragmatic and swift in order to maintain popular support and prevent even greater future civilian casualties. The author's proposals are bold; however, it is questionable whether the consistent use of military force without regard for diplomacy and civilian lives can have a lasting positive effect. The author provides further interesting insights through the statement that Israelis provoked the war by trying to impose European ideas on an indigenous culture. In light of the Holocaust, however, it is unfortunate that some of the ideas presented in this book seem a bit Nazi-like. For example, the statement that women should not be drafted into combat because "girls should learn to be mothers," is almost verbatim Hitler's idea and does not befit a society that advocates democratic ideals. Another example is the Jews' desire to maintain a separate identity, "to live in an ethnically homogenous state without anyone else." This clannish behavior, for lack of a better word, might be at the heart of the suffering that Jews have had to endure for much of their history. On the other hand, the author does recognize that democracy and liberalism are difficult to come by in societies that do not share similar cultural values. A minor weakness of the book is the references to the Torah and what it dictates. Since virtually all religious people believe that their religion alone has value, religious references intended to justify a behavior tend to lead to dead ends and normally cannot be used successfully in logic argumentation. These references are also the cause of some confusion, since the author paradoxically states that it is "better to admit honestly that the historical parts of the Torah are not factual." The author deserves credit, however, for the analytical rather than emotional approach to the difficulties that Israel faces in the Middle East. The author sheds light on the complexity of many points, such as what constitutes Jewishness: Ethnic traits or religious standards? To whom should the state of Israel belong? The answers to these questions are not immediately apparent and need to undergo a great deal of analytical scrutiny. I would recommend this provocative study to anyone with an interest in conflict resolution and political world issues.